Key Assumptions Underlying the Project Results Framework

36

2.4 Key Assumptions Underlying the Project Results Framework

This proposal makes critical assumptions about external factors beyond the control of the project which otherwise may affect SFMP’s ability to make measurable improvements to reducing fishing effort and rebuild targeted fish stocks in Ghana’s marine fisheries. These include: • Climate change, increasing sea temperature or ocean acidification does not result in ecosystem changes that significantly impact local fish yields during the life of the project. • Fisheries have not already collapsed and entered an ecosystem shift which precludes the rebound of small pelagic and demersal fisheries. • The high fecundity and short life cycle of small pelagics and current biomass enable rebound within the life of project after new management measures applied, such as closed season. • A national plan for small pelagics, covering over 50 percent of the CGLME stock, is sufficient to have a positive overall impact on stock recovery inside Ghana’s waters. • Other Gulf of Guinea nations do not increase fishing to replace any reduction by Ghana, and Ghana fishing effort is not displaced to other countries to fish the same stocks. • WARFP resources are supportive of USAID Ghana’s investments. • The GOG provides political support to implement policy changes needed. • The 2016 presidential and parliamentary elections are conducted peacefully and do not delay SFMP’s policy engagements and decision making at the national level. 37

3. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS AND PROCESSES

This section of the SFMP ME Plan describes the performance monitoring system and provides a succinct description of program’s data acquisitioncollection plan for the various levels of indicators Impact, outcome and output,data capture, storage and analysis, Communication and reporting, Data Quality control and Assessments and Surveys Project Baseline, Evaluation and Special studies 3.1 Performance Monitoring Plan PMP 3.1.1 Data AcquisitionCollection Plan Program indicators are presented to measure the effect of the Ghana SFMP activities regarding rebuilding targeted fish stocks, through a reduction in overexploitation levels. Some of the indicators and targets measured through the Project are simple and straight forward e.g. number of individuals trained, number of days of USG funded technical assistance provided, number of policies, and number of information products disseminated. For these indicators, we will use project deliverables and artifacts used as data sources and evidence that the targets have been met. Other indicators and targets are more complex, such as number of direct project beneficiaries and prevalence of poverty i.e. percent of people living on less than US 1.25 per day. For these indicators we will use a mix of project artefacts e.g. lists of individuals supported by the project and that are engaged in fisheries management, climate change adaptation, improving post-harvest handling and supply chains, and diversified livelihood activities and field surveys e.g. measuring changes in fish yields, household resilience, food security, income, and standard of living. The indicators hectares under improved management and hectares showing improved biophysical conditions as a result of USG assistance will be tracked by using GIS mapping, biophysical data collection see section on baselines below, and monitoring, fisheries policy reforms, fisheries and mangrove management plans and other measures that are drafted, adopted, implemented, and enforced. The indicators “number of CSOs and national level agencies strengthened” and “Number of stakeholders using climate information in their decision making as a result of USG assistance” will be measured using project artefacts e.g. training session plans and participant lists; vulnerability assessments and adaptation plans prepared by local institutions. Institutions will be counted as having improved capacity if they participate in assessments or planning exercises, receive relevant training, testimplement new technologies, or gain new equipment or inputs necessary for planning, assessment and management. Technical exchanges, certifications, or trainings will also be considered to improve institutions’ capacity. Changes to the institutional or policy environment, for example, facilitating collaboration between scientists and policymakers, or workshops or planning processes across sectors or themes e.g., fisheries, environment, forestry, and water may also enhance capacity.